Thursday, November 8, 2007

Stupid Blog Post of the Week

It's hard to believe that somebody besides Jim Oberg won this award, but Expat managed to trump him this week. Here goes:

expat wrote:

"Since you write in your TOS post "Criticism of our data and arguments is certainly allowed", I have a few points:1] On page II of the introduction, you make much of the fact that Sec 305 (i) of the Space Act includes the clause "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Ch 17, Title 35 of the United States Code". Are you aware that Title 35 is exclusively concerned with US Govt policy in respect of patentable inventions by Govt employees, and has no conceivable application to photography of the moon or artifacts retrieved from the moon? If you are aware of this, don't you consider it would have been more honest to point that out in your text? If you were not aware of this when you wrote your intro, I have now made you aware of it and you can verify it with a few google-clicks. Will you add a correction at next edition?"

Are you aware how completely wrong you are?

According to this section of the Title 35 code:

“When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates—

(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery [emphasis added].”

Obviously, any bona fide alien artifacts discovered by Apollo, either in the form of NASA photographic evidence of same, or actual samples of ET technology brought back from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews, would clearly fall under the authority of Title 35, according to this specific language. So, again -- you are completely, utterly, totally wrong.

I guess I don’t need to make a correction for the revised edition after all, do I expat?

But, I really appreciate you pointing everyone else to this key section of the Space Act, which makes our legal case air tight -- against NASA's supposed "scientific openness," certainly when it comes to any genuine "extraterrestrial technology" it clandestinely discovered and brought home.

"2] As we well know, media of every kind from every country in the world had access to Public Affairs Offices in every one of the NASA Centers dring and following Apollo. In light of this, which photographs are you claiming are "never before seen", and how would you know that they had not been examined or published by any of the world's media?"

There are a number of frames, like various versions of AS10-32-4822, which were blacked out in the photographic catalogs and\or pilfered from the desk of the NASA administrator back in the 1970’s that have never before been published. We know this because we have been the only ones in possession of the originals. It’s all in the book.

"3] Your statement that Farouk El-Baz was "the most powerful figure in the whole Apollo Program" is in error. Dr El Baz's title was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee, 1967-72. He also had an important function in astronaut geological training. Did you not know that the offices of Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, Administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight, and Director of JSC (held at the material time by George Low, George Mueller, and Bob Gilruth respectively) had infinitely more influence on the management of Project Apollo than any committe secretary? Low, Mueller, and Gilruth -- not to mention Administrators Webb and Paine -- could have eaten El-Baz for breakfast if they had so desired. Now that I have reminded you of this fact, will you add a correction at next edition?"

This statement is not “in error,” within the context of our book. Since we place a great deal of emphasis on the landing site selection, and since El-Baz had the greatest influence on that, he was a lot more important than the guys who oversaw the design process of the spacecraft. Who do you think had more influence on picking the landing site for Apollo 11? Low? Mueller? Gilruth? Or El-Baz?

I see no reason to correct a “fact” which is merely your uninformed opinion. Nice try though.

Perhaps you should do more thorough research before embarrass yourself further.


  1. How interesting! there is no question that there were tiers of NASA's high management way above me. But the author is right in specifying my influence on the selection of landing sites (may be because I had excellent relation with Rocco Petrone, Apollo Program Director at NASA HQ) and on the
    training of astronauts (because I had easy access to them). More importantly I did not carry any baggage or represent views of a given organization such as JSC or the USGS. I spoke for myself as a geologist and my sole aim or purpose was the best for the best for each mission and its success.
    In the final analysis, we all felt that we were achieving a dream of humanity and everyone worked with no regard to the "self" or how history will evaluate roles. We worked for the success of Apollo
    and of the U.S.A.

  2. Well Mr. Oberg, do you any response since you seem to have once more been shown to be negligent in research on a subject for which you say NBC/MSNBC pay your salary for your work...seems they are getting some sloppy research work from you...I wonder if they know?

    And to Mr. farouk, thank you for coming forward with the BRUTAL TRUTH of those times...which as a teenager I agree was an effort for ALL OF HUMANITY and everyone worked together without trying for any 'headline credits' that 'some journalists' seem intent on still acquiring for PERSONAL gain ... or some 'gotcha game'.

    Those of us who LIVED through the Apollo years and even from the early Mercury days watching from the outside...we SAW that co-operation and combined effort made those historic trips possible...from the seamstresses who sewed the space the machine builders cutting metal parts to nearly impossible specific the pad crew...all the way up to astronauts, their trainers, and the program was a HUGE and a great collaborative effort...where the MISSION came first...and "credits and gotcha's" were not thought of because everyone recognized how 'childish' such things were in the face of the imense effort needed to put humans on that "Smile in the Sky".

    Thank you for your efforts and for coming here to clear that issue up.

    Your efforts and ACTIONS during the Apollo program made the following shown to be true:

    ACTIONS speak louder than words.
    ACTIONS are PROOF of intent.
    ACTIONS are the final judgment of character.

    It REALLY is that simple.


  3. I'd like to add a comment to this thread but have to formulate it to the satisfaction of Mr. Bara, the host of this blog -- as is proper netiquette. We're working on it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.